Explicit Knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Tue May 09, 2017 5:08 pm

Belinda wrote:DontAskMe wrote:
So here you are saying no to the idea that you have a free will to choose to be for or go against the will of what your society says is morally right?

And according to you, when you are living from a good conscience you are cultivating that conscience for yourself as the only acceptable way to live life....is that right? ..yes or no
It depends on what you mean by "free will". There are causes for what I do. I don't do anything without cause, including when i don't know what the cause is.
Has your country or society imposed on you against your will that is it compulsory to have a good conscience? ...or did you create the good conscience for yourself?

And then you go on to say that you rely on your conscience to be your guide before making an important decision and without such a conscience you feel like you would not be able to make the right decision.

So here you are saying you are the author of your decision making? ... and that your country does not dictate that for you?

Therefore you as Belinda must be the author of your life are you not?

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Tue May 09, 2017 10:08 pm

DontaskMe wrote:
Has your country or society imposed on you against your will that is it compulsory to have a good conscience? ...or did you create the good conscience for yourself?
I don't know what proportions of nature or nurture.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Wed May 10, 2017 6:49 am

Belinda wrote:DontaskMe wrote:
Has your country or society imposed on you against your will that is it compulsory to have a good conscience? ...or did you create the good conscience for yourself?
I don't know what proportions of nature or nurture.
So it's nature or nurtures gift to human, nature has endowed human consciousness with a good conscience - but doesn't seem to have extended that nurture to the rest of the animal kingdom, for example why doesn't a lion have a good conscience?

Also, isn't it possible that nature or nurture is not quite so generous to some humans when you get people willing to steal money from others so that they can buy fine houses and cars and never get caught? does that make it morally wrong to do that sort of thing if nature or nurture has not been so generous as to give them a good conscience, perhaps not giving them one at all, if nature hasn't given them one, does that mean they are wrong to do what they do, can they be held responsible if they haven't got a conscience?

I'm just using my skeptical reasoning critical thinking mind here to ask is it wrong to steal money from others if that is what is happening, in that the thief doesn't appear to have a conscience...where does this idea that a human has a conscience come from and can science prove that it exists? .. what do you think?

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Wed May 10, 2017 8:20 am

DontAskMe wrote:
So it's nature or nurtures gift to human, nature has endowed human consciousness with a good conscience - but doesn't seem to have extended that nurture to the rest of the animal kingdom, for example why doesn't a lion have a good conscience?

Also, isn't it possible that nature or nurture is not quite so generous to some humans when you get people willing to steal money from others so that they can buy fine houses and cars and never get caught? does that make it morally wrong to do that sort of thing if nature or nurture has not been so generous as to give them a good conscience, perhaps not giving them one at all, if nature hasn't given them one, does that mean they are wrong to do what they do, can they be held responsible if they haven't got a conscience?

I'm just using my skeptical reasoning critical thinking mind here to ask is it wrong to steal money from others if that is what is happening, in that the thief doesn't appear to have a conscience...where does this idea that a human has a conscience come from and can science prove that it exists? .. what do you think?
Biological investigation together with zoology and psychology show that mammals have brain structures that allow for empathy and cooperation .

All mammals have to be socialised usually and most importantly in childhood or babyhood so that their empathy and cooperation is fostered.Human babies and children mature morally more slowly than other animals, and the stages of moral maturation are apparent in young humans. Some human adults have never matured through all the moral stages.

Humans have cultures, which span the generations, of both ethics and socialisation which can foster thieving and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief, even limited family or tribal cultures, encourage thievery and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief foster sympathy and conscience. There is plenty of evidence for cultural differences in attitudes towards ethics such as not stealing, or not being sympathetic, or reserving sympathy for those of the same skin colour, nationality, or social class.There is even evidence that some thieves who are actually criminals will condemn with great strength of feeling others who have committed child abuse or animal cruelty.

Conscience is apparent in domestic dogs who have been taught not to steal or abuse humans or even sheep. However wild animals such as lions, which you mention, I don't know whether or not they feel remorse if they transgress the behaviour they learned from their mothers, and I doubt if lions in the wild can transgress the behaviours that are proper to the wild species.

Religions usually describe what natural (i.e. God-given) human nature is and therefore what we as societies and individuals should be so as to be what God ordains.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Wed May 10, 2017 11:33 am

Belinda wrote:
Biological investigation together with zoology and psychology show that mammals have brain structures that allow for empathy and cooperation .
Is this evidence of intelligent design that is ordained by a moral absolute to ensure the survival of a particular species ..or is it an objective truth?
Belinda wrote:All mammals have to be socialised usually and most importantly in childhood or babyhood so that their empathy and cooperation is fostered.Human babies and children mature morally more slowly than other animals, and the stages of moral maturation are apparent in young humans.
Belinda wrote:Some human adults have never matured through all the moral stages.
Does that make those people immoral...or amoral? ..can such a person be held accountable for their immoral or amoral actions if nature had not bothered to develop those human attributes in those particular people? ....and on whom or what authority would we then have to solely rely on to judge those people?...who or what can make a claim to be final judge and arbitrator of what's moral and what isn't here, would that be down to a relative decider ..or would it be down to a moral absolute decider ?
Belinda wrote:Humans have cultures, which span the generations, of both ethics and socialisation which can foster thieving and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief, even limited family or tribal cultures, encourage thievery and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief foster sympathy and conscience. There is plenty of evidence for cultural differences in attitudes towards ethics such as not stealing, or not being sympathetic, or reserving sympathy for those of the same skin colour, nationality, or social class.There is even evidence that some thieves who are actually criminals will condemn with great strength of feeling others who have committed child abuse or animal cruelty.
Can double standards be fair in a moral just world... can there be any real moral objective truths if they were not withstanding to a moral just absolute law?
Belinda wrote:Conscience is apparent in domestic dogs who have been taught not to steal or abuse humans or even sheep. However wild animals such as lions, which you mention, I don't know whether or not they feel remorse if they transgress the behaviour they learned from their mothers, and I doubt if lions in the wild can transgress the behaviours that are proper to the wild species.
Looks like evidence of a moral just rational conscientious mind then, that it can spread to other sentient beings...again pointing to intelligent design? ..or did that mind just accidentally by chance evolve from pond scum? can a living mind come from a non-living mind? ...can a blade of grass ever develop a conscience? ..doesn't that suggest that the living mind must have always existed absolutely?
Belinda wrote:Religions usually describe what natural (i.e. God-given) human nature is and therefore what we as societies and individuals should be so as to be what God ordains.
Or does man aka the mind describe what is unable to be described except as and through the instrument for reasoning and thinking as manifest as descriptions witnessed by the vessel itself...the vessel being the receiving and transmitting part of the mind translating data that's been around since the big bang, which is more evidence for creation... more evidence of a creator ...that creator being a causeless causer that's always existed.. infinitely forever?

I'm like you, just trying to critically think about the nature of reality...who is there to authorise what's right and wrong here? who would that entity be that could do that? You see, I'm also sceptical ..and don't just look at things relatively ...for how Am I doing that? I have no idea who I am except what thought thinks I am, there has to be a much more reliable and bigger absolute knower far greater than my limited ideas could ever come up with.

Can science prove that a conscience exists? ...or it is taken on faith, and if it is, then isn't that the same as saying there is an absolute moral just creator of law aka God? .....

Or is the belief in a conscience a relative objective moral truth which believes it has overall authority on the matter....and can relative moral objective truths even exist without a moral absolute?

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Wed May 10, 2017 6:15 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Belinda wrote:
DontAskMe wrote:
Biological investigation together with zoology and psychology show that mammals have brain structures that allow for empathy and cooperation .
Is this evidence of intelligent design that is ordained by a moral absolute to ensure the survival of a particular species ..or is it an objective truth?
It's an empirical truth.

DontAsk Me :
Belinda wrote:All mammals have to be socialised usually and most importantly in childhood or babyhood so that their empathy and cooperation is fostered.Human babies and children mature morally more slowly than other animals, and the stages of moral maturation are apparent in young humans.
Belinda wrote:Some human adults have never matured through all the moral stages.
Does that make those people immoral...or amoral? ..can such a person be held accountable for their immoral or amoral actions if nature had not bothered to develop those human attributes in those particular people? ....and on whom or what authority would we then have to solely rely on to judge those people?...who or what can make a claim to be final judge and arbitrator of what's moral and what isn't here, would that be down to a relative decider ..or would it be down to a moral absolute decider ?
If you believe that the individual in question originates her actions then she is immoral if she acts immorally. If you believe that we are puppets of fate then the individual is not responsible. If you believe that the individual had a reasonable selection of choices and is an intelligent adult then the individual is responsible for her actions.
The authority we rely on under British Law does I understand stem from commonly held moral codes. These moral codes were, historically, mediated by Christianity.

DontAskmE:
Belinda wrote:Humans have cultures, which span the generations, of both ethics and socialisation which can foster thieving and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief, even limited family or tribal cultures, encourage thievery and lack of sympathy. Other human cultures of belief foster sympathy and conscience. There is plenty of evidence for cultural differences in attitudes towards ethics such as not stealing, or not being sympathetic, or reserving sympathy for those of the same skin colour, nationality, or social class.There is even evidence that some thieves who are actually criminals will condemn with great strength of feeling others who have committed child abuse or animal cruelty.
Can double standards be fair in a moral just world... can there be any real moral objective truths if they were not withstanding to a moral just absolute law?
I personally believe that my own , liberal , culture of values is the best. There are no moral absolutes, except insofar as human nature contains moral absolutes. However , as nobody has reliably defined what human nature is we have to make moral decisions based upon normal kindness, and prevalent traditions.

DontAskMe:
Belinda wrote:Conscience is apparent in domestic dogs who have been taught not to steal or abuse humans or even sheep. However wild animals such as lions, which you mention, I don't know whether or not they feel remorse if they transgress the behaviour they learned from their mothers, and I doubt if lions in the wild can transgress the behaviours that are proper to the wild species.
Looks like evidence of a moral just rational conscientious mind then, that it can spread to other sentient beings...again pointing to intelligent design? ..or did that mind just accidentally by chance evolve from pond scum? can a living mind come from a non-living mind? ...can a blade of grass ever develop a conscience? ..doesn't that suggest that the living mind must have always existed absolutely?
Belinda wrote:Religions usually describe what natural (i.e. God-given) human nature is and therefore what we as societies and individuals should be so as to be what God ordains.
Or does man aka the mind describe what is unable to be described except as and through the instrument for reasoning and thinking as manifest as descriptions witnessed by the vessel itself...the vessel being the receiving and transmitting part of the mind translating data that's been around since the big bang, which is more evidence for creation... more evidence of a creator ...that creator being a causeless causer that's always existed.. infinitely forever?
No. Nature is not intelligent by which I mean nature makes no plans in advance.
It's reasonable to believe in a supreme god which set nature going but has no further interest in events in nature.


DontAskMe wrote:
I'm like you, just trying to critically think about the nature of reality...who is there to authorise what's right and wrong here? who would that entity be that could do that? You see, I'm also sceptical ..and don't just look at things relatively ...for how Am I doing that? I have no idea who I am except what thought thinks I am, there has to be a much more reliable and bigger absolute knower far greater than my limited ideas could ever come up with.
That's the human condition to be responsible for ourselves and for what we can do about the biosphere and to shoulder the burden of responsibility.

DontAskMe wrote:
Can science prove that a conscience exists? ...or it is taken on faith, and if it is, then isn't that the same as saying there is an absolute moral just creator of law aka God? .....

Or is the belief in a conscience a relative objective moral truth which believes it has overall authority on the matter....and can relative moral objective truths even exist without a moral absolute?
There is sufficient evidence that people feel remorse, and can predict that they will feel remorse if they contravene what they feel to be right and good. That's what I mean by 'conscience' anyway. Men are naturally cooperative with each other especially when caring for their young.I mean that men will form collectives for mutual support in caring for their own. Mammals are like that.

I believe in the authority of nature and I don't believe there is any need for parents or teachers to postulate a god as giver of moral laws. Such a god is often used as a threat. Better to teach the child to advance stage by stage towards mature morality. There are better ways to teach a child than to tell the child lies about how there is a real huge big Person in the sky who knows best for us.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 11, 2017 6:49 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Can science prove that a conscience exists ... or it is taken on faith and if it is then
is not that the same as saying there is an absolute moral just creator of law aka God

Or is the belief in a conscience a relative objective moral truth which believes it has overall
authority on the matter ... and can relative moral objective truths even exist without a moral absolute
Science does not deal in proof so cannot prove that a conscience exists. But a conscience is a function of the brain and they do exist so
it is not a faith position either. And therefore not the equivalent of claiming that God exists. A proposition with absolutely no evidence
to support it. There is no such thing as relative moral objective truth. Something is relative then it cannot be objective and vice versa
And morality is not objective as it can only be subjective or inter subjective

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Thu May 11, 2017 8:18 am

Surreptitious replied to DontAskMe:
Science does not deal in proof so cannot prove that a conscience exists. But a conscience is a function of the brain and they do exist so
it is not a faith position either. And therefore not the equivalent of claiming that God exists. A proposition with absolutely no evidence
to support it. There is no such thing as relative moral objective truth. Something is relative then it cannot be objective and vice versa
And morality is not objective as it can only be subjective or inter subjective
DontAskMe erred in her use of those terms as Surreptitious explains.However DontAskMe's case is that morality is objective if as she would claim Godditit.

DontAskMe is enquiring into the nature of human conscience. The questions of whether humans' consciences 1. exist, and 2. are innate or wholly down to nurture are worthy of addressing.

If human consciences are substantially innate, as DontAskMe (god-believer) and I (atheist) believe to be the case, then the debate turns into, not a nature/nurture debate, but a debate about the author of nature.

As an atheist I say that nature is the only cause of itself: as a theist DontAskMe claims ( in effect) that god/God is the only cause of itself/Himself.

Despite DontAskMe 's not being wholly cvonversant with the terminology her intention is clear enough.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Thu May 11, 2017 8:36 am

surreptitious57 wrote: Science does not deal in proof so cannot prove that a conscience exists. But a conscience is a function of the brain and they do exist so
it is not a faith position either. And therefore not the equivalent of claiming that God exists. A proposition with absolutely no evidence
to support it. There is no such thing as relative moral objective truth. Something is relative then it cannot be objective and vice versa
And morality is not objective as it can only be subjective or inter subjective
If we all agree to having a conscience - and that the conscience is a natural function of the brain, then that is based on faith alone..since it cannot be proven scientifically, it has to be taken on faith...you cannot live your life based on having no faith in your beliefs. To even be able to say it is a function of the brain is a belief based on faith...do you not see the irony of trying to play God here?

Same way you have faith that when you board a jumbo jet aircraft, you have faith that it is not going to crash, that it will get you to your destination safely because it has been built by a reliable conscientious mind..in that you trust..have faith.

That faith comes from a higher truth. There is a rational conscientious just moral mind operating as and through your body brain mechanism...but it's not your mind, you are the co-pilot of this mind, not the original pilot...if there was no original pilot...you would have no right to judge others for their actions whether those actions are wicked,evil or of good intent...they'd all just be relative to their own personal individual beliefs and selfish desires.

If everything is relative and we're all just going to end up in the fertilizer pit at death because life was basically meaningless and without purpose ..then people will choose to act out their own selfish desires and would unknowingly be up the creek without a paddle, having the attitude of no sense of moral obligation to the consequences of their actions, and life would be dog eat dog scenario, till you die. Could you live like that?...I doubt it... no more than a baby or child could live without the help of it's parents carefully planned guidance remembered from their own pre- life experiences.


.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Thu May 11, 2017 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 11, 2017 9:15 am

Dontaskme wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Science does not deal in proof so cannot prove that a conscience exists. But a conscience is a function of the brain and they do exist so
it is not a faith position either. And therefore not the equivalent of claiming that God exists. A proposition with absolutely no evidence
to support it. There is no such thing as relative moral objective truth. Something is relative then it cannot be objective and vice versa
And morality is not objective as it can only be subjective or inter subjective
If we all agree to having a conscience - and that the conscience is a natural function of the brain then that is based on faith alone
... it cannot be proven scientifically it has to be taken on faith ... you cannot live your life based on having no faith in your beliefs
To even be able to say it is a function of the brain is a belief based on faith .... do you not see the irony of trying to play God here?
Science is not an exact discipline. So there are things that exist which are beyond its remit. However it does not mean that they are not true
Rather that science cannot demonstrate that they are. I do not live my life based on faith or belief I have no time for such things. But I know
I have a conscience. That is a statement of fact not a matter of opinion. Do you think you have a conscience or know you have a conscience?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 11, 2017 9:47 am

Dontaskme wrote:
If everything is relative and we are all just going to end up in the fertilizer pit at death because life was basically meaningless and with
out purpose ... then people will choose to act our their own selfish desires and would unknowingly being up the creek without a paddle
having the attitude of no sense of moral obligation to the consequences of their actions and life would be dog eat dog scenario till you
die. Could you live like that .... I doubt it .... no more than a baby or child could live without the help of its parents carefully planned
guidance remembered from their own pre life experiences
Life is meaningless and without an [ objective ] purpose and people do choose to act out their own selfish desires. Some do have a sense of moral obligation with regard to the consequences of their actions. But not always. Life is in part a dog eat dog scenario. I could not live like that though some can and do. And I did not know human beings had pre life experiences but this is a faith based position and as I said I have no time for them

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Thu May 11, 2017 10:02 am

surreptitious57 wrote: Science is not an exact discipline.
But life is an exact discipline, but not the kind of discipline that humans attribute it with, the way life runs itself is very accurate and precise, that's all I'm trying to show you. Life is running you, you are not running the show so to speak...

I put my faith in the one running the show, and that's all I have to say, I trust in that one only.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 11, 2017 10:07 am

Dontaskme wrote:
life is an exact discipline but not the kind of discipline that humans attribute it with the way life runs itself is
very accurate and precise that is all I am trying to show you. Life is running you you are not running the show
Life is not an exact discipline or accurate or precise [ because death is inevitable ] but it is running the show

Belinda
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Thu May 11, 2017 10:11 am

DontAskme wrote:
I put my faith in the one running the show, and that's all I have to say, I trust in that one only.
So why are you on a website devoted to philosophy?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Thu May 11, 2017 10:13 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
life is an exact discipline but not the kind of discipline that humans attribute it with the way life runs itself is
very accurate and precise that is all I am trying to show you. Life is running you you are not running the show
Life is not an exact discipline or accurate or precise [ because death is inevitable ] but it is running the show
Have you ever died? ..not someone else, not your pet or some flower, but you as you are right now? have you ever died?

How can you say that is is inevitable...you have never known death, you have no idea what death is?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest